Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

Continuing Combat At Home: How Judges And Attorneys Can Improve Their Handling Of Combat Veterans With Ptsd In Criminal Courts, Jeffrey Lewis Wieand Jr.

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Ask, Tell, But Do Not Get Greedy: The Inequalities That Pervade In The Military In Light Of The Repeal Of “Don’T Ask, Don’T Tell”, David Barnes

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Ethnic And Racial Minorities, The Indigent, The Elderly, And Eminent Domain: Assessing The Virginia Model Of Reform, Jim Bailey

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Section 7: Gay Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Profiling And Immigration, Aaron Haas

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Failure Of The Fourth Amendment & Equal Protection's Promise: How The Equal Protection Clause Can Change Discriminatory Stop And Frisk Policies, Brando Simeo Starkey

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Terry v. Ohio changed everything. Before Terry, Fourth Amendment law was settled. The Fourth Amendment had long required that police officers have probable cause in order to conduct Fourth Amendment invasions; to administer a "reasonable" search and seizure, the state needed probable cause. But in 1968, the Warren Court, despite its liberal reputation, lowered the standard police officers had to meet to conduct a certain type of search: the so-called "'stop' and 'frisk.'" A "stop and frisk" occurs when a police officer, believing a suspect is armed and crime is afoot, stops the suspect, conducts an interrogation, and pats him …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.

The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …

Explaining Korematsu: A Response To Dean Chemerinsky , Robert J. Pushaw Jr.

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Korematsu V. United States: A Tragedy Hopefully Never To Be Repeated , Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald

Pepperdine Law Review

A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Plessy V. Ferguson And The Anti-Canon, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, which dealt with the constitutionality of racial segregation in the U.S. Topics include the application of precedent in controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases, when the U.S. Constitution can overrule a court decision, and dissenting judicial opinions.

Coming To Terms With Dred Scott: A Response To Daniel A. Farber, Paul Finkelman

Pepperdine Law Review

When thinking about Dred Scott, the issue is not how do we “rehabilitate” the opinion. The goal of scholarship here is to understand the opinion, place it in the context of its own time, and explain its enduring significance. After that, we may praise or damn it, and rehabilitate it or condemn it. No one today likes the Dred Scott opinion or the result. But, this article argues that Professor Daniel A. Farber is so incensed by the opinion that he vastly overstates its historical significance including incorrectly blaming Chief Justice Taney for causing the Civil War. This article rejects …

A Fatal Loss Of Balance: Dred Scott Revisited , Daniel A. Farber

Pepperdine Law Review

This essay focuses on three aspects of the Dred Scott opinion: its effort to ensure that blacks could never be citizens, let alone equal ones; its deployment of a "limited government" argument for a narrow interpretation of Congress's enumerated power over the territories; and its path-breaking defense of property rights against government regulation. These constitutional tropes of racism, narrowing of federal power, and protection of property were to remain dominant for another seventy-five years. Apart from the failings of the opinion itself, Dred Scott also represents an extraordinary case of presidential tampering with the judicial process and a breakdown in …

In Defense Of The Obama Administration's Non-Defense Of Doma, Daniel J. Crooks Iii

Legislation and Policy Brief

The Constitution charges the President with the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .” Moreover, the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Although “[g]enerally, these duties are compatible . . ., when the Executive faces a law that he believes is unconstitutional, he must decide whether the law should be executed as written and defended if attacked, or whether the duty of faithfulness to the Constitution requires its repudiation.” This decision belongs to the President alone as the head of a co-equal branch of …

Breaking The Seal On White-Collar Criminal Search Warrant Materials , David Horan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Medicating The Ada - Sutton V. United Airlines, Inc.: Considering Mitigating Measures To Define Disability, Ian D. Thompson

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Individual Autonomy Versus Community: Is It All Or Nothing? An Analysis Of City Of Chicago V. Morales , Keasa Hollister

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Davis V. Monroe County Board Of Education: Setting A Stringent Standard Of Fault For School Liability In Peer Sexual Harassment Under Title Ix-Demanding Responsible Proactive Protection, Lindsay Havern

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Wilson V. Layne: Increasing The Scope Of The Fourth Amendment Right To Privacy, Ashlea Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cedar Rapids Community School District V. Garret F.: A High Price For Equal Education , Kristie Harding

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.